Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Rudy on immigration (and good timing)
Wow, Terence Jeffrey is everywhere. I linked to his article in the NRO yesterday. He's all over cable news, and now this morning, he has a new article up on Human Events.
Today's topic: Rudy's statements on immigration from the Hannity & Colmes interview.
Let me say that, in broad form, I share Jeffrey's surprise that the man who brought us the "broken windows" school of policing, to great success, would support a "virtual fence" over an actual fence. Especially since, as Jeffrey accurately points out, the already-approved fence could have the same electronic capabilities as a virtual fence--just with an actual barrier.
The nonsense about needing illegals to build the fence is just insulting.
I don't want to say that Rudy is a lost cause on immigration, if only because his core philosophy on crime does not seem to dovetail with what he's offering on border security. As a result, I'm hopeful he'll change his stance. But what he's offering now is the type of "normalization" lingo that means one thing to most conservatives: amnesty. From Jeffrey's article:
Now we'll have to see how he weathers the close scrutiny and criticism which is undoubtedly coming his way.
Today's topic: Rudy's statements on immigration from the Hannity & Colmes interview.
Let me say that, in broad form, I share Jeffrey's surprise that the man who brought us the "broken windows" school of policing, to great success, would support a "virtual fence" over an actual fence. Especially since, as Jeffrey accurately points out, the already-approved fence could have the same electronic capabilities as a virtual fence--just with an actual barrier.
The nonsense about needing illegals to build the fence is just insulting.
I don't want to say that Rudy is a lost cause on immigration, if only because his core philosophy on crime does not seem to dovetail with what he's offering on border security. As a result, I'm hopeful he'll change his stance. But what he's offering now is the type of "normalization" lingo that means one thing to most conservatives: amnesty. From Jeffrey's article:
"And then I think there has to be regularization for the people that are here," he said. "There's got to be a program to regularize the people that are here, as you establish security at the border."I guess the kid-glove treatment for Rudy is over. It may have been smart for Rudy to hedge on whether he was planning to run. For the past few months, it's been Romney-bashing time. For the previous 6 years, it was McCain-bashing time. Rudy, by staying out of the limelight, has really been able to retreat to the safe glow of his 9/11 reputation. As a result, he's coming into the race now with a lead over McCain and Romney, whereas a few months ago he was even with, or even slightly behind, McCain in most polls.
Hannity followed up, "Does that mean amnesty, though?"
"It doesn't mean amnesty," said Giuliani.
That's George W. Bush-talk for: Yes, it does mean amnesty.
Now we'll have to see how he weathers the close scrutiny and criticism which is undoubtedly coming his way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
February
(50)
- Hunter on Red State Radio
- Romney's game plan...
- Al Bore
- Romney
- US Archery Budget v. Pyongyang
- A Rudy Haiku
- Benedict Arnolds in the Faculty Need to Go
- BoA Update
- Dem in-fighting
- Why France (still) sucks
- Update on the Anglican-Catholic dialogue
- Welcome Linderman!
- Mitt's first TV ad
- Happy Florida Day!
- Romney Gaining Some Important GOP Backing
- Duke Lacrosse: More than rich white snobs?
- Anglicans returning to the fold?
- Gingrich
- James Sherley
- Bank of (Illegal) America
- Read it. Love it. Memorize it.
- AMT
- US Muslims
- Primaries
- Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
- An Acceptable Public Display of Religion?
- Mitt and Mormon
- Rudy as terror-fighter
- Quote of the Day
- Rudy on immigration (and good timing)
- Welcome, Mr. Mayor
- Lieberman tax
- James Sherley
- NRO Double Feature:
- Happy Birthday, Mr. President
- Whales are great, but please, save the Christians!
- Rudy on Abortion, Feb. 5, 2007
- Don't say we didn't warn you...
- T.R. on immigration
- Glad to put that one to bed
- '08 candidates
- Will Saudi Arabia ban the letter "X"?
- The Iraq Civil War spreads to the Homeland
- RSC invites the candidates
- Rudy
- Iraq
- Patty B on W's shady history
- Romney gaining traction in the midwest
- You gotta be s'ing me
- Norwegians deliver U.S. ultimatum: Go green or els...
-
▼
February
(50)
3 comments:
Rudy's going to be in a tough spot. As Fredo points out, now that he has officially declared, the honeymoon is over and the gloves will come off. Unfortunately for him, the conservative press is going to come out swinging and try to score a KO punch in round 1, making way for Romney or other candidates. The MSM at best will give him a pass and minimize their coverage; at worst they will eventually look beyond his 9/11 leadership and liberal social stances to denigrate his positions to be tough on crime (remember how vilified he was by press in late 90s for cleaning up NYC???) as well as free-market policies.
SHK:
I've been surprised at the number of folks at RedState, Human Events, and R42008 that think Rudy is Option #1 on GWOT, and that alone makes him the best choice. There are clearly a good number of people that simply don't care about immigration policy and cultural issues.
The main question, IMO, is: what percentage of GOP primary voters simply will not vote for an open-border, pro-amnesty, pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate? I'm going to bet that % will be in 30-40 range. That leaves Rudy needing to take 70-80% of the remaining voters for a majority. Of course, in a 3 man race, the numbers change a bit.
A second question is: does Rudy really deserve all the heavy-breathing over his presumed ability to conduct the GWOT?
Some good points, here are my thoughts:
1. I'd be interested if anyone has done an analysis of the folks who post at RedState, etc. compared to cross-section of Republican party. I just don't know if there is a reasonable representation, or if the posters are primarily focused from one camp within the party. Right now I'd say there are 3 main camps in party: fiscal conservatives, SoCons, and GWOT.
2. I think SoCons are a dominant force among likely voters, but it's not a slam-dunk they go Repub. I think the fraction of people for whom SoCon is #1 issue is quite small; more likely the majority of the group are people for whom once fiscal and GWOT prereqs have been satisfied, they turn their attention to SoCon. So if they feel that economy sucks and their job is in danger, or that Iran is about to nuke us, they'll vote for the candidate who is strongest on those issues and worry less about whether the kid down the street has two mommies. I'd also guess that among the various SoCon issues, abortion is the one that is least negotiable, while some other issues (marriage, illegal immigration, ...) are important but not necessarily deal breakers. But again, I have zero data for any of these points, just supposition.
3. Your last question is a good one. Rudy clearly has demonstrated: (a) ability to attack crime head-on and (b) provide solid leadership in a crisis situation. While both of these are excellent attributes to have in government, they do not necessarily imply any ability to deal with GWOT and prevent attacks on US. For me it is not a foregone conclusion that Rudy is the best of the candidates to conduct GWOT; in fact, if anything I'd say McCain with war experience and Congressional committee experience probably has the best creds at this point.